"Real" running shoes from Vibram?

Barefoot Shoe, a marketing catch phrase used to denote a concept. The concept is a SHOE that has the primary purpose of lightly protecting the foot from the ground surface. This is accomplished by attaching a thin, flexible rubber sole to the bottom of the foot with the use of a lightweight upper. The intended outcome while protecting the sole of the foot is to allow for some level of sensory ground feel as well as providing the foot with the freedom to move and function as if it where.....gasp......BAREFOOT.

I suppose the marketing people could have lifted the two words and called it SHOE BAREFOOT but somehow BAREFOOT SHOE seems catchier. For a while, I thought this was a marketing label that failed miserably but now I think it is quite the contrary. Because it is an oxymoron, it makes people think. Barefoot shoe...what? What is that? Is it a shoe or is it barefoot? They are selling something so it can't be barefoot, it must be a shoe. When people hesitate to think, they remember. I would suspect that there are few people in the world that have even the slightest exposure to running shoes who haven't come across the barefoot shoe catch phrase and haven't remembered it.

The other aspect about this phrase that makes it brilliant is that it forces a reaction. People either like it or hate it, there is little room for neutral ground. That reaction again forces people to think and remember.

There have been thousands of marketing buzzwords and catchphrases used in the athletic shoe industry, I'm not sure many have been more powerful than this one. What is also great about this catchphrase is that you don't need 10 or 11 buzwords to describe a shoe in the hopes that one of them will catch the customers attention. The one phrase is more than sufficient.

For those who can't think to the next level about the actual concept that the barefoot shoe phrase is denoting, they probably have bigger issues than understanding what a barefoot shoe is.

Dana

 

I doubt it.

Besides, your comeback with your height and weight told me what I needed to know which is where you are coming from. While you are trying to figure out what a barefoot shoe is, if you'd like, take a crack at why I asked you about your height and weight.

 

Oooo, snap! I take it back. With linguistic fireworks like that you'd clearly have STORMED the conversation you told me you didn't want to have, but now apparently do.

As to the rest, I'm afraid I can't begin to work out what insights you think my bmi give you into the contradictions in barefoot marketing material. :wacko:I'm sure they're very profound in your head. How significant do you imagine that makes them?

Now, why not run along so the grown ups can have a conversation hmmm? Have some more imaginary discussions. I can practically guarantee that in them, we'll all hang on your every word, laud your wisdom and insight and afford you all the kudos and respect you appear to have utterly failed to earn on this forum in real life! Everyone wins!

 

I am not confused Dana.. not on this issue anyway. Last time I looked I did some work for ASICS and you work for IBM so I am pretty sure I know what is going on. It is still our house of innovation and still a product where we test theories. You seem like such an angry man.. I can't be bothered.

 

Simon, I'm not angry at all. It's funny how the written word can get so misinterpreted. I am very content and happy with all facets of my life. If I wasn't having so much fun on this forum I'd go away.

As far as the Gel - Kinsei 4 which I keep referencing, I've attached a picture of the shoes being sold at Eastbay for $189.99 US, they are available in US mens sizes 6.5 through 15. I can show you a photo of the womens model for sale as well. They are also for sale at Zappos, Road Runner Sports, Finishline and Nordstroms.

Just look up any of these retailers and you can see the shoes on sale and with customer reviews about them dating back almost a year. It doesn't matter to me that you think they are concept shoes, I'm actually more concerned if things are OK. I'll let this rest because I really don't know what is going on.

Peace,

Dana

 

I'll let this rest because I really don't know what is going on.


me either.. I have no idea what you want me to say.. it is and always has been a concept shoe.. that it is on sale is just the ugly commercial reality of a major athletic footwear brand. As some point, they have to put shoes on the market so they can go back to the drawing board with enough money to bay the designers and developers to come up with new designs and developments :hammer::deadhorse:

 

I have learnt two "new" things today in this thread:

1) According to Simons post above Dana is a man! Holy hell I have been so wrong! I thought Dana was a female who worked in the medical profession...turns out she is a he who works at IBM!

2) When Dana says he is going away its a tease - its like the "pseudo semi cult like religious status of barefoot running" - just when I think I have answered the last question to my patients about it - someone else comes in shooting regurgitated garbage out of their mouth cited straight from some cult running forum or a barefoot running shoe site!

Please God - let it end!!!!!! If I knew my career was going to be spent pointing out the glaringly obvious flaws in the concepts proposed by barefoot runners I would have quit years ago....

As for my dislike of the GT2000, well lets just say I was a 2170 fan!

 

Hahahaha - I realize the older I get the more dynamic I need to become! You are correct. When push comes to shove though at least the GT2000 gets a look in, where the Vibrams never even get a mention!

 

Just had another runner in my office yesterday, 6' 4", 220 lbs, who had read "Born to Run" and decided he was going to go barefoot/minimalist. He did great for 1-2 months training for a 1/2 marathon in minimalist only shoes, then developed bilateral proximal plantar fasciitis for 6 months and hasn't been able to run during that time in any shoe.

He was referred to me for orthoses and I casted him yesterday for the orthoses since he now can't even walk without pain. While I was talking to him, I told him my little story about being named the "Angry Podiatrist" by the author of "Born to Run" and my adventures with the barefoot running community. He was quite entertained by all of this. I also let him know that I appreciated all that Chris McDougall had done for my practice, greatly enhancing the financial success of my practice with all the injured barefoot/minimalist runners I have seen since the book had come out. He got a laugh out of all of this and just hopes I can help him. I hope I can help him also.

Just thought I should throw this little anecdote out there for all those who think that minimalist shoes never cause harm to runners.

 

How can that happen? Have you not been reading all those blog posts that minimalist running is the best thing for plantar fasciitis? .... don't figure igs:

....see: Two different scenarios of treating a runner with plantar fasciitis

Since writing that thread a couple of months ago, I have either treated or been contacted by or read about over 20 cases of plantar fasciitis in minimalist runners!!! Given that the thread on Trends in Running shoes sales put minimalist sales at 8% of the market ..... don't figure!

 

A quote from that article: "Minimalist models accounted for 8% of road running dollars, and grew 34% in units and 38% in dollars compared to same month last year."

I read the full article from leisure Trends Group and wish they defined their categories. Who knows how they are defining a minimal shoe, are they including racing flats? At what point does a minimal shoe go from being minimal to neutral/cushioned? At what point does neutral/cushioned to go to stability and and what point does stability go to motion control?

They point out minimal models as a part of road running but what about the minimal models that are trail shoes? They have a separate category for trail shoes but at what point is a trail shoe classified as a road shoe?

My point is that I'm not sure the article tells us much other than maybe what the overall growth in running shoe dollars and units are. Since they separate racing shoes and trail shoes from road running shoes, you can't even make much out of overall trends.

Trying to pigeon hole each model of shoe into a given category would only give a rough approximation at best. There are just too many characteristics and each has a range along a continuum. Is a light shoe with a rigid sole a racing flat, a minimal shoe, a stability shoe a trail shoe or a road running shoe? Maybe they just leave it up to the shoe companies to label what category the shoe is being marketed in and leave it at that.

Not sure any of this matters, I just wouldn't try to make much out of the findings.

 

Dana I don't know if too many people in the medical world actually give more than 0.008th of a millisecond thought to it. Different shoes have different constructions and hence allow different "platforms" for the foot to function on. "Minimal" or "barefoot" or whatever you want to call it its all in the same category.... So when is a Vibram not a Vibram? Or when is a Free not a Free? When I assess my athletes I take into account what they are doing, the forces going though their lower limbs and their bio-mechanics/movement patterns relating to force distribution of the lower limb. We ALWAYS discuss many types of shoe brands pertaining to specific models which may in fact suit them. Its not that we don't discuss other models/brands that may not suit them, its just my job to narrow the list so their choices are better refined and tailored for them personally. I can honestly say I have NEVER met a patient where I have recommended a "minimalist" style platform. Not because I don't like them personally - its just that I have never seen anyone who I thought would have benefited from it. On the flip side I have seen many patients come through my door carrying their Nike Free or Vibram shoes saying they are injured (go figure!).... So in summary - "minimalist" is simply a category like "neutral" or "guidance" - but I don't see you asking for definitions of those? Any reason why?

 

Paul, unfortunately you missed the point I was trying to make. Try to list all of the shoe categories and then define them, maybe you'll see what I'm talking about.

Look at this thread, specifically post number 4. http://www.podiatry-arena.com/podiatry-forum/showthread.php?t=85666
and see the response to post #4, kind of disappointing but I've grown to expect that.

There are people with pathology and people who are healthy. I presume you see the people with pathology, a healthy runner just doesn't need help fixing problems they don't have.

There are healthy people that have never seen the inside of a medical office for foot and leg issues. They can wear just about anything, run any distance on any surface and remain healthy. Given this population of people that you never see can pick any shoe they want off of the rack and have success with it, which end of the rack would you suggest they lean towards, the light end or the heavy end?

I don't have a problem with any category of running shoe. On the other hand, there are people on this forum who are outwardly and blatantly negative towards certain brands, models and categories of shoes. When questioned they will deny it but yet I see the rant over and over again on this forum about someone wearing minimal or barefoot shoes. I see these people who are negative about minimal or barefoot shoes as being no different than the barefoot or minimal shoe advocates. They call themselves medical professionals, yet they are grossly biased and they back their arguments with unsubstantiated information, no different than the barefoot or minimal shoe advocates they despise.

I currently own 17 models of running shoes that I wear actively. They range from ...... gasp.....FiveFingers up to stability shoes, specifically a model of Asics GT. In addition, I own neutral shoes, cushioned shoes, trail shoes, road shoes, minimal shoes, barefoot shoes, road racing flats and trail racing flats. The way I know what category these shoes are in is because the shoe companies labeled them as such.

If I am biased towards one category or another, then why do I own and run in shoes in essentially all categories? Frankly, I've never met a running shoe I didn't like. In my opinion, they all have their pros and cons. There is no such thing as a perfect running shoe. There are just shoes more appropriate depending on the intended use. The only reason I am seen on this forum as an advocate for minimal or barefoot shoes is because I can't help debate with those who have a biased opinion about them. I find these people wrong, that there are people who do benefit from wearing them and I'm just trying to point it out. I would do the same thing if they had the same ignorant comments about stability or neutral shoes.

Do you know what motivated me to buy my first pair of Vibram FiveFingers? In 2010, Kevin Kirby went on and on for months negatively ranting and raving about these shoes and that anyone who wore them was doomed. The thread was closed down eventually because it became so excessive. At the time, I decided I was going to see for myself what was so EVIL about these shoes. It turned out I had a COMPLETELY opposite opinion about them and have since bought 4 more pairs in different models in addition to that first pair. I have logged thousands of miles in Vibrams and have never felt better. No I did not end up in the podiatrist's office and I doubt I ever will. For the right people, I just don't see what all of the stink is about.

Because I find I benefit from running in VFF, does that mean I dislike other brands, models and categories of shoes? Not at all. Because I like running in VFF does that mean I think the people you see with pathology should be wearing them running? No, not at all. Does that mean there aren't people who can use them and benefit from them? No, there are plenty of people who can wear VFF, enjoy them and benefit from wearing them. In spite of that, would be really surprised if you or your peers prescribed VFF to any runner experiencing some sort of pathology. That would not be a good idea, you should prescribe whatever you think will best help your patient. If it doesn't work, then try something else. The hope or notion that minimal shoes are a fad that will go away is totally ridiculous and laughable. There have always been minimal shoes and there always will be minimal shoes.

Lately, I have been running in VFF the majority of my time but today I wore a pair of Asics Fuji Trail shoes. Why the change for today? I could have worn VFF today but in my opinion, the Asics Fuji Trail shoes were much better suited. I went on a 15 mile, rugged trail run in the mountains of Colorado. The Asics kicked butt, If I had worn VFF today, the only butt kicking would have come from the trail. Tomorrow I will run less on a gentle trail and wearing VFF which feels fantastic on a recovery day.

In an earlier post Simon Spooner asked if I still rotate my running shoes or do I run exclusively in VFF now. Before I owned VFF, I used to rotate through the many models of running shoes I own as a preventative measure to injury. I never wore the same model of running shoe twice in the same week. The thought was that each running shoe stresses your feet and legs a little differently. By rotating your shoes, you are not subjected to the same stress points over and over. By not having the same stress points irritated, it gives those areas a chance to recover and subsequently avoid injury. Since I started wearing VFF, I realized that they really allow the ground to provide the variation instead of the actual shoe. I run essentially exclusively on natural surfaces such as trails. Without much of a shoe to cause stress points combined with variation from the ground surface, I no longer find the same need to rotate running shoes. I still wear traditional running shoes to take a break from VFF but I don't need to rotate shoes like I did when I was exclusively wearing traditional running shoes. If I went back to exclusively wearing traditional shoes, I would go back to rotating them. While they all have positive aspects, it is the negative shortcomings of a given shoe that I don't want to over expose myself to.

Paul, after I write a post like this, I am predictably reminded about where I work, that I'm not a medical professional, that my experience is anecdotal and that I am a subject of 1. In spite all of that, I have a boatload of expertise about how a given running shoe will behave when running regardless of what my degrees are in, regardless of the fact that I'm not running around giving lectures, writing papers or seeing patients. Instead I am spending time learning about how a given model of shoe performs under certain circumstances. I can tell you what it feels like to run in a given type of shoe for 50, 60, 100 miles in one shot on pavement or on trails. I'm not sure there are many people on this forum that can do that. I can tell you what it is like to put 600 or 700 miles on a pair of shoes in a single month. I'm not sure there are many people on this forum that can do that. No I didn't get a degree in shoes, I doubt anyone on this forum has a degree in shoes. Knowing about the movement of the STJ in the foot is great but what does that tell you about how a pair of running shoes are going to perform at a certain distance and pace?

In the end, I will be told from the people on this forum that they don't care and I'll be asked why I'm here. Believe it or not, I actually have an interest in running shoes, running shoe design and biomechanics. What I find disappointing about this forum is that many of the people here as so focused on fixing pathology that they forget that there are actually healthy people that have a totally different set of requirements than those with issues. What I also find disappointing is that several that consider themselves "medical professionals", are unwilling to learn and discover what variables are present or not present in the healthy person that makes them different from those they see every day with pathology.

Dana, who doesn't care if someone finds the need to pull rank on me yet again.

 

Dana, it is true you take punishment on this arena from time to time. I can promise you, you are no orphan there, and the purpose of this forum is to try to weed out fact from opinion. Everyone of us has had the blowtorch applied from time to time!
Unfortunately, when it comes to running footwear, feedback from the runner must by definition, always be subjective, and from where I stand, there is nothing wrong with that at all. In the shoe development process, ASICS is very dependent upon opinion from our (many) shoe testers, and without that information, we simply would not be able to build shoes the way we wanted.
So feedback on running experiences from people like you is important, and I for one enjoyed your last post and believe it has improved my body of knowledge. In my opinion it therefore has a rightful place on podiatry arena.
best
Simon

 

Thank you Simon, I sincerely appreciate it.

Dana

 

As I have always said I do appreciate your opinion - I didnt know who or what you did for a living un til only a few posts ago so you have always had the same consistent treatment from me and will continue to do so!

The "blowtorch" is needed on public forums because so many people hide behind anonymity and talk so much crap that occasionally its hard to see beyond it.

The use of the sentence "benefit from wearing VFF" has no decent clinical evidence to support it (if there is please point me towards it). Its heresay - why do they benefit? What causes the benefit? See this is where we will disagree because if a patient who has no issues and runs in ASICS 1170 or VFF and continues to have no problems what is the actual "benefit"? If a patient is injured and comes to see me they never end up in VFF's so where is the benefit? Where is the evidence to suggest VFF can fix lower limb force related injuries? These are all sensible questions in my opinion.

I get why you do what you do - but there are probably a miriad of reasons why you are not injured not relating to your footwear. I was more trying to point out that I don't know if there are clear boundaries set for any shoe category. What the Podiatrist next door thinks may be motion crontrol enough for one patient I may think is not enough! Its all a matter of opinion (like I stated my views on the GT2000 vs the 2170) - personality plays such a large role in what each person is trying to achieve for their patients. Its for that reason I respect what Kevin or Simon or Craig or any other medical professional believes. The best thing about this industry is when you get all of us in a room together we all agree on certain principals but have our points of view relating to it. No one is wrong, just differences of opinion.

Ill give you a good example - 2 weks ago I seen a patient who has anterior tibial tenosynovitis. She was about to run a very long race against my advice - she had her mind set and that was that! She wouldn't have anything in her shoes, wouldnt take any meds I suggested and the ONLY thing she let me do was "strap" her foot which I did aggressively and with much vigor to get her through the professional race. Post race she said the pain was bearable and much better with the strapping, she had no further injury and asked what do we do next. Of course I wanted to use an orthotic to stabilise her and change her shoe. The resistance was like dealing with the wicked witch of the west! I got the 15mins yelling treatment of how dare I - orthotics were evil, her current neutral shoes she loves and doesnt need to change them because she has been using that style for 10yrs! When I pointed out that all we were doing with the strapping was "supporting" her like a shoe and an orthoses would as well as the fact that people are DYNAMIC - she backed off a bit. Shoes, orthoses, meds, corticosteroid, whatever - arent they all treatment modalities in the end?

 

I reckon we are all on the same page here Paul.
Dana can do whatever the hell he likes.. and he is free to experiment. And if the VFF works for him... great!
The issues would come if Dana had a website and was promoting that VFF is the ONLY shoe to wear and that it will do all things for all people.
from his previous posting.. he is saying horses for courses, and mixing it up is good. I agree!
I think that is where this discussion started, because I do not think (correct me if I am wrong) that he IS saying that.. but to some degree, the VFF website does say that.. and that is unacceptable.
best.. S

 

I quite like my GT 2000s... Jury is still out on my Neo33.

Don't call them orthotics- explain that you will customise the inside of their shoe to account for the unique morphology of the foot and alter the application of forces in an effort to improve their dynamic function. In addition you do this in a way that they can move the customisation from shoe to shoe...

 

hang out for the Super J's my friend.. best shoe I have ever been involved with!

 

Paul, good questions and I also get your point of view. I will use this post to talk about the benefit of wearing VFF. I would just like to have a good discussion, you have every right to think what you want and have your opinion just as I have mine. It is my hope that we can remain respectful and courteous to each other and just have a meaningful discussion.

What is important and I've mentioned it in my prior post is to make the distinction between healthy runners and runners with a history of injury and pathology. I really believe they are two distinct populations that have distinct requirements. I also believe that by the nature of your profession, you are really focused in on the group with injury and pathology.

When I talk about VFF, I am assuming and implying that they are being used by the healthy runner population.

I have mentioned this before and will restate here. I do not hold a lot of stock in what is said on a shoe companies web site. I see it as a marketing tool and it is being used to sell shoes. I do have interest in the technical specifications and the intended marketing target but as far as an assessment of the effectiveness of a given shoe, I will try to find independent reviews for that. If I go far enough to actually buy the shoe, at that point it is only my assessment of the shoe that matters.

I know Vibram lists a bunch of benefits of using their shoes, some matter to me, most don't. What matters to me is the benefits I experience. I am going to try to avoid the marketing buzzwords because I don't want them to elicit preconceived opinions you might have around those buzz words. And again, this is from the point of view of a healthy runner who is not concerned with correcting or preventing injury or pathology.


1.) Sensory nerve endings - for whatever reason, your feet are loaded with them. For the reason why, I'll let the anthropologists worry about that. All I know is that we have a tremendous sense of feel in our feet. When I first bought a pair of VFF, I wore them on vacation to Las Vegas. I remember getting out of the car and feeling the pavement. It was hard, somewhat rough and hot. I walked across the parking lot, then cut across a grassy area, the grass was soft yet had some inconsistencies to it. I went into the hotel and walked across a marble floor. The marble was cool, hard and smooth. I took an escalator up and I could feel the ridges on the steps. I next cut across a carpeted area that felt very soft and unlike the grass outside, very consistent. From the carpet I walked to the lobby which had a tile floor. The tile was hard with some texture and had grooves. After checking in, I went to the coffee shop and there was a hardwood floor, similar feel to marble but it was not as cool. Later while getting my luggage, I walked on a dirt and gravel path to take a short cut back to the car. The dirt felt soft and even while the gravel was just hard to describe. Sometimes forgiving, sometimes the sharp rocks hurt.

In a matter of minutes, I had this amazing series of feelings and sensations with my feet that I had spent my whole life taking for granted. I thought right there that regardless of how these shoes work for running, to experience this sort of sensory wonderland, the VFF were worth the price of admission.

When running, those sensations and feeling of what is underfoot is just as active. The difference is you can cover so much more ground so you get to feel so much more. Whether you are running on pavement, concrete, dirt, sand, gravel, grass, mud, snow, ice, whatever, you can feel all of it bigtime. In traditional running shoes, ground feel is so muted that you aren't even aware of it and tend to take it for granted.

Vibram, the minimal shoe and barefoot advocates like to think of it in terms of proprioception and it's benefit is to help you develop "good form", balance, foot placement, whatever. I don't care. My form is what it is, it works and I don't plan on changing it.

I simply enjoy the enlightening experience of being able to feel the ground below me and using some of that huge quantity of sensory receptors I have been given to the bottoms of my feet.

2) Ground variation - when you run on natural surfaces such as trails, the ground is uneven. The unevenness forces you to use muscles, tendons, ligaments to stabilize your feet and legs as you land on irregular surfaces. While this might benefit those with traditional shoe as well as those with VFF, there is a study, specifically using the Nike Free that demonstrate that when using a flexible, somewhat non-supportive shoe that the muscles in your feet will grow larger and stronger. That may be true and Vibram will claim it is true. In addition to those findings, I believe that with ground variation it alters the stress points on your feet and legs and helps the runner avoid excessive repetitive use injuries. When using VFF, a non-supportive shoe with a highly flexible sole, ground variation plays a much bigger role.

3) Massage - Another area that I'll let the experts debate the actual therapeutic benefit of. What I do know is that it feels great and I am specifically thinking of the benefit to your feet. When you wear shoes running that have thin flexible soles, especially on natural surfaces that have gravel, rocks, sticks, etc. All of these things have a way of continuously pushing and poking the soles of your feet not unlike a massage. After spending an hour or so with all of this pushing and poking on your soles, combined with an active use of the muscles in your feet for support over uneven surfaces, the experience you get which is especially noticeable when you stop is that you feet just glow. There is a feeling in your feet that is just incomparable to wearing traditional shoes. I speculate the glow is from loosening the anatomy of the foot combined with an increased supply of blood. Whatever it is, it feels fantastic.

4) Running is all about the relationship between your body and the ground. It is about the interaction your body has while moving across the surface of the earth. VFF facilitate that interaction with the ground. They allow you to feel the ground at a much greater level, they allow you to use the muscles in your feet and lower legs at a much greater level and they allow the ground to massage your feet as they are working. Running along a trail in VFF is an amazing experience of feeling the ground and feeling how your body responds and reacts to it.

Will any of this prevent or cure injuries and pathology? Who knows? Will they cause injuries or pathology? Who knows, maybe, but for the injury free runner who trains intelligently, I doubt it. Will any of this allow you to run faster? Who knows? Actually, who cares? Running isn't always about how fast you can run. At this point from my perspective, it is never about how fast I can run, it is about how much I enjoy the experience.

For some, VFF can greatly enhance the running experience for the reasons I mentioned above and possibly others I haven't thought about. It is the enhanced running experience that is the true benefit of VFF. Ironically, they don't even mention that on their web site.

Dana

 

I'll respect your point of view as long as you respect mine and the direction this forum is coming from (this is not a runners forums its a medical one....)

So why not walk around barefoot? Why do you need a $200 piece of rubber to help with this? It makes no logical sense.

What the "barefoot" community and you describe above is NOT proprioception....

Every person I have ever seen running in a pair of FREE's or VIBRAMS do so on pavement. Hard, flat, consistent pavement. There is no ground variation!

Link please. This study wouldn't have been sponsored by Nike would it? If what you are saying here is true then why doesn't "support" footwear make your foot muscles weaker?

You can believe what you want but injuries in the lower limb are force related. How does not adding anything under the foot and still running on the same surface alter the "force"? Hence how do Vibrams help avoid excessive repetitive injury? It makes no sense.

Yes I get the same feeling from eating a block of Cadbury Chocolate - the difference is I don't claim that reduces lower limb injury rates when I run!

Well apparentlyou and Vibram do according to the above...im confused, you made the statements above so don;t take the easy way out and say "who knows?" As stated above this is a medical forum - we have blowtorches!!!

This ground has all be covered before, arguing it out is essentially futile!

 

Paul, I give up, I regret the time I've spent on this so I'll cut my losses and move on. Good luck with your practice. In the meantime I will continue to enjoy my running.

Dana

 

The study was sponsored by Nike and first author was Peter Bruggermann. It looked at muscle cross sectional area as a POSSIBLE indicator of muscle power. At no point did the researchers measure muscle strength.

 

and a more recent study from the same group (that was wrongly analyzed) still managed to show that running in "supportive" running shoes still also strengthened the muscles: Athletic training with minimal footwear strengthens toe flexor muscles

 

Tease!

Good points Paul. As always this stuff all sounds very plausible but not when you scratch beneath the surface :-/

 

Since there seems to be a few people that are too slow to catch on, I'll spell out what I'm saying.

I agree that this is not a runners forum, hardly seems like a medical one though. My opinion and I'll think what I want.

I run in weather sufficiently cold enough to get frostbite this time of year. In the warmer months I am not going to waste my time building up calluses so that small rocks and stones don't bother my feet. It will be winter before I know it, I'll need to keep my feet warm and I'll lose the calluses. The shoes don't cost $200, I already called you on that once. Besides, who cares what they cost, owning as many pairs of running shoes that I have, obviously cost is not an issue for me. The point of wearing VFF is to simply protect the bottoms of your feet from friction from the ground, from sharp things, from the heat and from the cold.

I tried to avoid using buzzwords because I anticipated you would react this way. I tried to say I don't care about proprioception. To put it in simple terms so that you don't confuse or misinterpret what I am saying. I like feeling the ground when I run. It is a matter of personal taste and preference. Wearing traditional shoes blocks most of that feeling.

Is that a medical statement? I never run on pavement. Go back and re-read why I think it is a good idea not to run on pavement. There are several reasons, I give one.

How does the outcome of one set of variables affect the outcome of another? What you are saying is not logical. Reread what I wrote, you again misinterpreted what I said. I don't know if the study is true or not, I mentioned it but I frankly don't care. I like running on uneven surfaces in traditional shoes and in VFF. Study or no study, I can assure you that you can feel the uneveness to a much greater extent in non supportive shoes.

Who said that they did? I have no idea what you are talking about. Why are you even talking about injuries? I repeated myself several times that this is about people wearing VFF who are injury free and pathology free. You seem incapable of leaving that concept even for a minute. Paul, read this slowly
..There..are..people..who..can..run..without..injury. Got it?

Here you go again. Who is talking about injury? Who is claiming anything about reducing anything? I don't get it. Based on your chocolate comment, I know you have no clue about what I'm talking about and never will.

No one is taking the easy way out. When I say who knows, I am pointing out that I DONT CARE! You are incapable of reading what I write, you twist things around and include your own agenda.

I'm not covering that same ground as others but you are incapable of seeing the distinction.

I really don't understand how someone who claims to be a medical professional can have so much trouble reading. You are not the only one who struggles reading direct and simple comments, there are many on this forum who suffer from the same problem.

Paul, if you can re-read what I wrote, then read what you wrote in response and feel good about yourself, all I can say is that I sincerely feel sorry for you.

Have a good life and sleep well my friend.

Dana

 

Robert, what is not plausible about the fact that I like the feel of the ground when I run? About the fact that I don't get injured so I belong in a different population than the people on forum see as clients and patients? What is not plausible about the fact that I like running on trails that have variation? What is not plausible that when wearing a thin soled shoe that the ground has a massaging effect to the bottoms of your feet? What is not plausible about the concept that when running, there is a relationship with your body and the ground?

I don't understand your comment.

 

Craig, that is great. Seems like common sense to me, running around doing a weight bearing activity. Sure beats sitting on the couch. I would have a hard time understanding why running in any type of shoe wouldn't strengthen your feet over not using them.

 

Which is exactly my point; so why do so many minimalist/barefoot advocates claim that 'supportive' running shoes weaken muscles?

 

Sorry, my bad, I thought muscle strength was affected. It's been a long time since I read the study.

 

I honestly don't know and I can't speak for them. I know I have never claim that running shoes weaken muscles. That just doesn't make sense to me.

 

Paul, you recently said the the Asics GT 2000 was a terrible shoe. When asked why by myself and Simon, your response was that you liked the GT 2170. Simon let you off the hook by saying you need to keep with the times. I just shook my head at the response.

Saying you like one shoe does not give reason as to why another shoe is a terrible shoe. Since this is a medical forum and you have your reputation to keep in tact, I would like to know why you think the Asics GT 2000 is a terrible shoe?

 

You shook your head at my response? For someone who values peoples opinions I find that invasive.

The truth is the GT2000 is being "sold" as a replacement for the GT2170 by shoe stores in my area. I don't think the GT2000 has as much midsole support as the GT2170, I find the heel elevation lower and to be brutally honest I have had 4 patients of mine find them difficult to work with in the last few months compared to their old GT2170 or Brooks Adrenaline.

Personally on examination of the shoe I find it less stable than the GT2170. I find I have to tailor patients orthoses slightly to fit better and work better in the GT2000 compared to the 2170. Does it have its good points - sure but when working with patients I need to worry about how I can use the shoe to be most effective with my management plan. In saying this my original comment was a tad sarcastic in nature because you had stated you had NEVER seen anyone on this forum say anything bad about ASICS. Well I did it for you! So now you can't say that!

I respect and value Simons opinion and personally think he is one of a very select group of individuals who not only practice but challenge concepts AND more importantly forwardly move the medical profession and biomechanics community in this country and worldwide. Hence I didn't disagree with him that during your career, just when you get comfortable with the mechanics and models of certain shoes the companies do a backflip on you. I'm all good with that because I know its all leading to changes and hopefully innovation in footwear and new designs/technology.

Change is a hard monster to contend with - and all of us throughout life find change difficult. But I am pretty resilient and I promise by March of this year I will have adapted to the footwear industry changes and find my new "niche" until the next updates occur. In fact I have been warming to the Mizuno Wave Inspire of late and always go back to my good old favourite the Brooks Adrenaline, Vapor and Trance!

See what you fail to realize Dana is that as medical professionals we have to work with footwear on a daily basis with 30-40 patients - each and every day. In addition to that, most of our patients are either injured or looking to prevent further injury...in addition to that alot of them are professionals and 8-12 weeks out of their profession may cost them millions of dollars in sponsorship, endorsement and earnings. We do not have the luxury of "waking up each morning, looking at the 17 different types of shoes we have sitting next to our bed" and deciding which trail I would like to "exterioceptively" feel under our feet each day!

My reputation is and always will be "intact" - because I go where the evidence takes me, not where the BS says I should go! My patients all appreciate that!

Since you raised the issue in your post above Dana and Simon has also stated that they never even measured foot muscle strength in the study you quoted - care to elaborate why you keep making statements to the effect that you did previously, alluding to the benefits of "barefoot" running? See this is my point - when push comes to shove random statements mean nothing! So what they strengthen foot muscles - what the hell does this mean???? Why does this matter? What does it do for me and my patients? Is strength a measure of efficiency? Why do atrophied foot intrinsic muscles cause the arch height to increase? Should "stronger" foot muscles cause the arch height to decrease? If a large proportion of the world have a pes plano valgus foot type (regardless of pathology) what does that say about the shoes we are wearing? Does it have any relevance at all? You are opening a can of worms here - be careful! My advice, take my questions as personal interest, answering them here may result in irreversible headaches!

 

See Dana I just re-read all the above and I think where we are coming un glued here is you are on a medical forum talking to medical people about things they see in the medical world every day. We see lots of things at work everyday of the year and unfortunately many of those things are musculoskeletal injuries. I can't speak for everyone else but your N=1 opinions (although nice to hear) have no relevance. I don't care about the warm fuzzy sensations you get when running "barefoot" wearing your VFF's through the rocky plains of the United States. I don't care that you enjoy a foot massage, I don't care that you have an intimate relationship between your body and your running and I definitely don't care that you have 17 different pairs of shoes and you believe your footwear knowledge is up there with world class professors and doyens of the medical profession! I don't even care if you feel sorry for me!

I care about 32yo Ms Smith who came to see me today who has bilateral compartment syndrome since she started running in her new "VFF's" in early December. I care about why she has that problem, how she got it, how can I help her pain and get her back to running as quickly and efficiently as possible. I care about how I can come on this forum and get advice from some of the worlds best to aid in my treatment decisions for her. Then finally when all is said and done I care about giving Ms Smith advice on how to possibly prevent injury in the future.

Our confusion seems to lay somewhere in the fact that I am trying to get honest evidence supported answers regarding management of patients whilst you believe your opinions may be providing those answers to me. No offense intended but I don't think they are. No matter how many times you want to argue your points, you are not going to change my mind about barefoot running, chi running, VFF's until you produce peer reviewed evidence of the reputable kind. So call me every name under the sun, defame me, say you hate my guts, say I don't know what I am talking about and drive a revenge fueled agenda against me all because I cannot see any evidence suggesting why I should be prescribing "barefoot" running footwear to my patients. I don't care - the only people who have to judge me are my peers and my patients. You are neither - although when you do get injured running in your VFF's (which clinical opinions say you inevitably will) please PM me for my clinic details

I value your opinion - but I don't like having it rammed down my throat without evidence. I have no agenda as you have suggested - I just want to do my best for my patients - we all do! Like I have stated many times before, show me the evidence and I will use it.

 

Nice posting Paul, Thanks.. and as I said a little earlier, this has brought us back to the start, where all we were complaining about is false or misleading claims by some running shoe manufacturers. I am sure historically every company has gilded the lilly to some degree, but as far as I know, and I am happy to be corrected here, very, very few running products ever hit the market where there was a large scale outcry from the medical community that they believed this product, or the claims, were actively and frequently leading to injury. A true cause and effect, which to mind mind has absolutely been established by some people who choose to run in a VFF, without taking the necessary precautions with their 100 dollar plus shoe.. that they just want to run in.. because it was sold and marketed to them.. as a running shoe.. for $100.. so I want to run..yes I know I am rambling..!!
Most people can go out, buy a GT2000, a Vapor, an Adrenaline, a Wave Inspire, a Trance.. whatever... and immediately do the exact mileage they did the day before.
Many, if not most people cannot do this in a minimalist shoe, especially the VFF, and for me, therein lies the conundrum, the problem and the damnation!. And I ask myself, as a runner, why would I bother, and why would I take the risk? I have independently come up with an answer that suits me.
A classic comment from Professor Reed Ferber from The University of Calgary very recently..
"“There’s a camp here in Calgary, they have a shoe burning ceremony on a Friday, and they all book appointments on Monday,” !
I believe nearly every single one of us in clinical practice on this Arena would strongly identify with this comment.

 

Couple of points-
1- The Nike Free study involved the subjects performing warm up drills in the Free- nothing more. They did all their other training in regular footwear. My understanding of what the Nike Free was designed to be in the first place (having spent a good 2 hours with the lead designer discussing this back in around 2005)- was a shoe for doing training drills in. Not for pounding out long runs on concrete. The study is interesting, but is often misunderstood (it was never published, but was presented at the ?ISB congress in 2005??
2- There is no evidence that 'barefoot' shoes being worn regularly strengthen the foot any more than standard footwear- this may be different if you are doing certain exercises or drills in this type of footwear.

Interestingly, this is one pathology that may benefit 'going minimal' if it is anterior compartment and if the subject over-strides... Having said that- probably better to do some gait training to stop over-striding in regular footwear.

 

Seeing through the eyes of a hammer, the whole world looks like a nail.

 

With risk, often comes reward.

 

Our understanding and what we view as the purpose of a running shoe are totally different and as a result we will always have great difficulty seeing the others point of view. It has taken me a long time to learn that.